The Improbability of God

1) Atheistic premise In my discussion at the beginning, I would like to prove that atheism / non-faith is reasonable. This is through argument called atheism premise. Atheism / agnosticism is perfectly rational, because the existence of God has no special claim, so the statement of the existence of God may be considered wrong. If that assertion is special, that assertion may be deemed false unless there is very strong evidence to support it.

Plantinga believes that arguments about the impossibility of the existence of God will fail for similar reasons related to contradictions of theologians' beliefs: they believe there is the best world that is not entirely clear. Although it is logically impossible. Again, I think he is too fast to dismiss an atheist's claim here. Finally, he spent a period of talking about just evil pastoral or religious problems: the writer may find religious problems in evil. Right attitude In the face of great personal distress and misfortune, he may be tempted to rebel against God, shake his fist to the face of God, even abandon faith in God. But this is a different dimension problem. This type of problem is not for philosophical awareness but for pastoral care.

They are logically contradictory or impossible to each other. It is now widely recognized that due to the work of Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, the inner problem of suffering is failure as an argument of atheism. It is not possible to prove that (A) and (B) are logically incompatible or impossible. In the case of the existence of God there is no way to prove that there is some reason to represent painful cases of which God has observed to some extent impossibly or impossibly. This is a great encouragement, as it deals with the remaining problems that have not been agreed (and constitute a definitive objection to the attitude that philosophy never made progress).